Facts of the case

On July 28, 2005, an informant told Officer Richard Sneider of the Suffolk County Police Department that he had purchased six grams of crack cocaine at 103 Lake Drive, Wyandanch, New York, from an individual named "Polo." Officer Sneider obtained a warrant to search the basement apartment at that address; the warrant provided that the apartment was occupied by a heavy set black male with short hair, known as "Polo." That evening during surveillance, officers observed two men -later identified as Chunon L. Bailey and Bryant Middleton-exiting the gate that led to the basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive. The officers followed Bailey and Middleton as they left the premises in a black Lexus, and pulled the Lexus over about one mile from the apartment.

The officers patted down Bailey and Middleton, finding keys in Bailey's front left pocket. They placed both men in handcuffs and informed them that they were being detained, not arrested. Bailey insisted that he did not live in the basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive, but his driver's license address in Bay Shore was consistent with the informant's description of Polo. The police searched the apartment while Bailey and Middleton were in detention, finding a gun and drugs in plain view. The police arrested Bailey, and seized his house keys and car key incident to his arrest; later, an officer discovered that one of the house keys opened the door to the basement apartment.

Question

Did Suffolk County police officers lawfully detain Bailey incident to the execution of a search warrant when officers saw Bailey leaving the immediate vicinity of his apartment before they executed the warrant?

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 19, 2013 in Bailey v. United States

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

Anthony M. Kennedy:

This is Bailey versus the United States as the Chief Justice has just indicated.

The case began with the issuance of a search warrant for a place, but in the end, it concerns the detention of the person and the resulting seizure of evidence from that person.

The place to be searched was a basement apartment in a town in Long Island, New York.

An informant told the police he had observed a gun when he was there to purchase drugs for the man known as Polo.

This information was the basis for the search warrant for the apartment.

The police obtained a warrant and assembled a search team.

A few minutes before ten in the evening, two detectives were keeping the premises under surveillance.

The search team had not yet arrived, apparently.

While the search team was preparing to go to the premises, the detectives saw two men leaving the apartment.

Both men appeared to match the general description of Polo, and one of them later turned out to be Polo and he assumed Bailey, the petitioner in this case.

Bailey and the other men left in a car.

The detectives waited for that car to pull away and followed in their own unmarked police car.

They followed for a distance of about seven-tenths of a mile and for about five minutes.

The detectives signaled the men to stop and ordered them out of their car.

A patdown search of Bailey produced a set of keys which the detectives took.

Both men were put in handcuffs.

The detectives call for a marked patrol car to take the men back to the apartment, the scene of the search.

In the meantime, the search had taken place and had revealed guns and drugs in plain view in the apartment.

Bailey was then arrested and charged with federal drug and weapons offenses.

At trial, he objected to the admission of the keys found in the patdown search into the admission of certain statements that he made when he was first stopped by the detectives.

And it is the admissibility of that evidence which presents the issue here.

The United States District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Bailey's detention and ensuing search were permissible as incident to the search of the apartment.

The question here is whether the rule that allows detention of those who are on the premises to be searched can be applied to persons beyond the immediate vicinity of the search scene.

And this Court now holds that the execution of a warrant to search a premises cannot support the stop and detention of an individual who is away from the scene of the search because Bailey was not on the premises or in the immediate vicinity when the stop and detention took place, that stop, detention, and search of his person cannot be justified as necessary for the search of the apartment.

The Court has recognized that officers can detain occupants of the premises while a lawful search is in progress and even restrain those occupants in handcuffs.

The two principal cases discussed in the opinion in which -- discussed that proposition are Michigan versus Summers and Muehler versus Mena.

Those cases go quite far, for they allow detention even without a particular suspicion that an individual is involved in criminal activity or poses a specific danger to the officers.

The detention is allowed in order to ensure the efficacy of the search.

And the interest that allow this detention includes safety considerations, so the officers can search without fear that an occupant will become dangerous or disruptive to the search, and so that the search can be completed without occupant's hiding or destroying evidence and to preserve the integrity of the search by preventing flight of the occupants who are on the scene.